#marc feinstein

There was little consensus on many of the highest profile issues of the 2013 Legislature at Saturday's final Sioux Falls legislative coffee of the year.

On questions about Medicaid expansion, guns in schools, abortion and texting while driving, the 11 local lawmakers present demonstrated why those issues have been so controversial with collegial but consistent disagreement.

"This is an opportunity for us as a state to be in a leadership position and say, 'We want to help these people who can't help themselves,'" said Rep. Paula Hawks, D-Hartford, about expanding Medicaid eligibility to people with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty limit.

Sen. Ernie Otten, R-Tea, took a different tack.

"This has got absolutely nothing to do with not wanting people to have health care," Otten said. "It does have to do with affordability and making sure we keep our budget within our means."

The "school sentinels" bill to give districts the option of arming volunteer defenders was praised as common-sense and permissive — and blasted as a step in the wrong direction.

"We're not talking about giving everyone guns," said Rep. Steve Hickey, R-Sioux Falls. "The conversation is what about the districts that can't have a law enforcement officer. Is there another person that could be qualified to get in there? I'm in favor of giving the school district that option."

Rep. Marc Feinstein, D-Sioux Falls, worried that putting more guns in schools would lead to innocent students being shot if there were ever an incident, citing an incident in New York City last year where trained police officers shot bystanders while trying to take down a shooter.

A ban on texting while driving also drew both advocates and skeptics. Rep. Anne Hajek, R-Sioux Falls, said the ban could create "a culture of kids who start driving, who realize you don't text and drive." Rep. Mark Mickelson, R-Sioux Falls, said he was having a hard time coming up with arguments "about why someone should text and drive."

But Otten said the ban would be impossible to enforce, and Rep. Isaac Latterell, R-Tea, suggested it was an example of government trying "to be everyone's parents."

A proposal to exclude weekends and holidays from South Dakota's 72-hour pre-abortion waiting period inspired some of the morning's sharpest language, with Feinstein quipping that "you don't get pregnant just between 8 to 5 on weekdays" and Latterell concluding "unequivocally" that "Planned Parenthood does not care about women."

A bill extending the time women must wait before having an abortion passed the South Dakota House with support from four-fifths of the body Wednesday evening.

House Bill 1237 would exclude weekends and holidays from the 72-hour pre-abortion waiting period signed into law in 2011.

Supporters said it’s necessary to give women more time to get the counseling required of them, given that crisis pregnancy centers may not be open on weekends or holidays.

“The exclusion of weekends and holidays is crucial to ensuring that a pregnant mother is able to obtain (counseling),” said Rep. Jon Hansen, R-Dell Rapids.

Democrats opposed to the bill called it insulting to women.

“My goodness, we think South Dakota women are stupid,” said Rep. Peggy Gibson, D-Huron.

Rep. Marc Feinstein, D-Sioux Falls, said the bill overlooked the fact that “the human body doesn’t only work and function during business hours.”

But a strong majority of lawmakers agreed that the extra time would help.

“This bill allows some extra time for those young ladies to consider what might be the most important decision of their young life,” said Rep. Scott Ecklund, R-Brandon.

A proposed amendment by Rep. Timothy Johns, R-Lead, would have watered down the amendment to require simply that the 72-hour period include one business day. The bill as proposed requires two business days.

Johns said he believes his amendment would make the bill more likely to hold up in court.

But Hansen said the bill was legally sound, and the House rejected Johns’ amendment by a voice vote.

Two Democrat-backed bills reforming the sales tax went down to successive defeat Thursday morning.

Rep. Marc Feinstein, D-Sioux Falls, pushed House Bill 1154, which would lower the state's sales tax on food and raise it slightly on everything else, in a roughly revenue-neutral fashion.

He pitched it as a matter of fairness — that a sales tax on food hurts the poor disproportionately — and pointed out that many states exempt food.

Countering that argument was the idea that exempting food would make the state's revenue stream unstable.

The greatest strength of the food tax is also its greatest weakness. Even in hard times, everyone has to buy food — it's what economists refer to as a product for which the demand is "inelastic." You can stop buying luxuries, but you have to buy food.

For opponents of food tax, this is exactly why the tax should be abolished — because the poor spend a disproportionately large portion of their money on food and other staples, it hits people with the least the hardest.

For supporters, it's why it should be kept. Because demand for food is inelastic, it provides a very stable revenue stream, as opposed to other products where tax revenue goes up or down with the economy.

But Feinstein's arguments — and those of retired economics professor Rep. Ray Ring — didn't carry the day. On a party-line vote, HB 1154 was defeated 10-4.

Rep. Susan Wismer, D-Britton, was up next with a bill increasing the state's sales tax from 4 percent to 5 percent.

Medical marijuana and regulating mixed martial arts bouts were among the issues dividing Sioux Falls-area lawmakers at Saturday’s legislative forum.

Nine senators and representatives representing districts 9, 13 and 14 took questions for 90 minutes Saturday morning, in the second of four legislative coffees sponsored by the Sioux Falls Area Chamber of Commerce and other groups.

One of the most controversial bills the South Dakota Legislature is considering this year, allowing schools to arm volunteer defenders, didn’t spark a debate on Saturday.

Instead, it was a bill to allow people charged with possession of small amounts of marijuana to cite medical necessity that provided one of the few spots of disagreement in the low-key forum.

Several lawmakers said they’re skeptical of the medical marijuana proposal, House Bill 1227.

“A case was made that you ought to be able to break a law, if there’s a higher good,” said Rep. Steve Hickey, R-Sioux Falls. “I would tend to agree with that until the higher personal good for you compromises what’s best for those around you.”

He said he worries marijuana is one of those cases.

Similarly, Rep. Mark Mickelson, R-Sioux Falls, said he was probably against the medical marijuana bill but expressed sympathy for people who use marijuana to treat chronic pain and other diseases. He suggested that prosecutors and judges use discretion to impose minor sentences in those cases.

Less nuanced in opposition to the bill was Rep. Anne Hajek, R-Sioux Falls, who warned that “marijuana is a gateway drug” and said she was opposed to any steps toward legalizing the substance, though she too said the state shouldn’t “throw people in jail for the use of marijuana.”

Meanwhile Rep. Marc Feinstein, D-Sioux Falls, suggested that leniency to small-time marijuana users was humane and would also relieve a burden on county jails.

Another bill, Senate Bill 84, has pitted lawmakers against Gov. Dennis Daugaard over whether the state should create commission to regulate boxing, mixed martial arts and other fighting sports.

A large majority of the South Dakota Senate approved SB 84, believing that the sports might be distasteful but that regulation can help protect people.

“What we’re talking about is a commission to regulate it so people don’t get hurt,” said Sen. Deb Soholt, R-Sioux Falls. “It’s happening in South Dakota. It’s unregulated. Because of that, athletes are getting injured.”

Hickey agreed with Daugaard that the bill would end up promoting these violent sports and cause more harm than good.

“Just because something is happening in the state doesn’t mean we need to legitimize it,” Hickey said.

Sen. Deb Peters, R-Hartford said she voted against SB 84 not because of distaste for fighting sports, but because of concern about the state’s fiscal liability if it created the commission.

South Dakota is caught in the middle, said Sen. Phyllis Heineman — “if we’re not going to have a commission that regulates it... then we should outlaw it,” she said.

Heineman came down in favor of regulating the fights and voted for SB 84.

Other issues discussed at the legislative forum included guns in schools, funding for Medicaid, illegal immigration and security deposits for rental apartments.

Visit argusleader.com to view a video of the legislative forum.